Obama!!!

Ok - phewwwwwwww, was 'bout to put on my redneck suspenders.

Well, I guess O's approval has dropped quite a bit. I notice that CNN is now placing a question mark at the end of his quotes.

__________________


...uh the post is up there...

I found a website that tracks Obama's campaign promises and other stories:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

I'm finding it a pretty valuable resource. Seems to be pretty balanced.

And it really exposes these chain emails conservatives send out to fuel anger and fear.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...s/chain-email/

If we do the math:

Barely True, False, and Pants on Fire claims: 43

True, Mostly True, Half True: 12

Is that a 28% accuracy rating? (And that's not even accurate, lol.)

They know they can lie and fuel anger so the uninformed and uneducated will run out and act like mobs.

And then people like Sarah Palin get out there and talk about how Obama's plan is "evil" because it will kill her child. My god.

Don't be surprised if some wacko resorts to violence.

Yes, the Truth-o-Meter is quite useful and very even-handed, from what I've seen. I remember looking for such a thing awhile back, finding it, and thinking "wow, this is literally exactly what I was hoping to find."

As has been pointed out, however, this works both ways. You could say that it's also funny how vigilant their liberal counterparts are about individual freedom except for economic freedom. By definition, if it creates a contradiction in one direction, it creates a contradiction in another.

Anyway, it's not as if all government spending is identical. Most of us agree that firefighters, police, and an army are all very necessary and are not things we can skimp on. These systems work and are absolutely crucial to us. When it comes to things like welfare, social security, healthcare, etc., there are more options available, and while some of these things are quite important, they are not as basic as simple protection from enemies and/or the elements/acts of God. It's not really apples-to-apples.

Yeah, I don't think it's true that hinting at hand-outs makes you a "fascist, left-wing dictator" to most, though the people who think such things are inevitably the loudest.

Anyway, you don't have to take those people seriously. In fact, I'd recommend that you take them so unseriously that you ignore them wholesale and direct your attentions to saner arguments. When we want the truth, we look for the best argument against what we believe to examine it, not the worst.

Affordable health care is not giving up economic freedom. It's about reining in the ungodly profits the insurance and pharmaceutical companies are making. You are not quite getting it. Further, a "public option" is just that: an "option."

Isn't it interesting how conservatives will defend spending ungodly amounts of money on defense and anti-terrorism but not on helping people find affordable health care? As a matter of fact, conservatives have rung up out of this world deficits and then complain about money being spent on people?

And you keep wanting to distance yourself away from the wacko fringe. Well, that wacko fringe exists inside the Republican Party in the very halls of Congress. The latest: standing on the House floor and saying that Obama's plan will "put to death seniors by their government," (Fox, R-North Carolina) and "this program of government options is gonna kill people." (Broun, R-Georgia)

Cue The Twilight Zone music. What really gets me is how outlandish these lies are and people stand there and say them with a straight face! It's freakin' unbelievable.

Bottom line: have a real debate about health care reform. But the conservatives refuse to do that. I really hope they have overplayed their hand.

Of course it is; forcibly taking away people's money is a decrease in their economic freedom.

I thought it was about getting people healthcare? Now it's about punishing corporations that you've decided are making too much? Who decides how much is too much, by the way?

And how do you reach the conclusion to begin with? Do you realize that pharmaceutical companies have to invest hundreds of billions of dollars (not an exaggeration) to develop drugs, some of which they can't get approved? What do you think happens to innovation with new medications when they're not willing to do that any more?

Except we don't have the "option" of not paying for it. That's not a choice at all. Not to mention that a) any "free" (in name only) option is obviously going to crowd out private choiecs, and b) the proposals mentioned often seem to involve some sort of tax/penalty on private insurance which puts it at a huge disadvantage. The idea that people will have a genuine option is an illusion.

Well, first off, I just explained why this is not an appropriate comparison. I also explained why this apparent contradiction should apply to the opposite point of view, too. See above in my reply to FILMFREAK.

That said, I'm not sure what you call an "out of this world deficit," but we're currently looking at something literally ten times higher than what the last administration left Obama. But, as you point out, it all depends on the wisdom of the spending. Not that the two deficits are, you know, even in the same solar system at this point.

Okay, move past the rhetoric and explain why it's factually wrong. Government-run healthcare is extremely expensive and cannot plausibly pay for everything everyone needs all the time. Rationing is inevitable (and expected; I don't think most supporters even deny this). Criteria is always needed for such rationing, which will inevitably include judgments based on age, quality of life, etc. Which of these statements do you disagree with, and why?

Yeah, "the conservatives." All of them. Except, you know, the one you're talking to right now. You're literally interceding in my attepts to talk about healthcare to tell me that conservatives don't want to talk about healthcare.

If you wanted a real debate about health care reform, I don't think you'd go looking for the scariest, silliest quotes imaginable at every turn. You'd be looking for the most well thought-out, reasonable forms of opposition, instead.

Yoda, go watch the footage from these town hall meetings and tell me conservatives want to talk about health care.

You're always saying "move past the rhetoric." I can't do that, because the rhetoric is always the problem. I'm just sad you refuse to see that.

So, your response is to ignore everything I said, and just remind me that there's video of angry protesters at town hall meetings? Really?

I don't refuse to see any of this, I simply refuse to ascribe it universal significance across an entire ideological spectrum, as you do. I also refuse to pretend that whether or not all conservatives are angry, spiteful jerks somehow tells us whether or not that nationalized healthcare is a good idea.

Alright, I'll tell you what: I'll respond to both the above and the post in Palin's thread with the following:

http://hcfan.3cdn.net/dadd15782e627e5b75_g9m6isltl.pdf

A detailed report about how the health care industry lacks competition in many states and that health care insurers have seen their profits rise approximately 438% during this decade, while people's premiums are soaring.

The people that put together the report want reform, so that may make you discount it, but there are stats there you can always check out yourself. And there's no way you can convince me that health care insurers haven't make a killing in the last 8 years.

What's funny, too, is that the states with the most problems are full of the idiots that are shouting at the town hall meetings. The irony of all this is rather amusing.

You see, the reason we are here is that greediness has taken over. And your solution -- one of your solutions -- is to go across state lines! You can't be serious.

And once again, conservatives didn't care about deficits under Reagan or Bush, but they sure care about it now? This screams hypocrisy.

You know, there could be a solution out there that includes a public option where the cost is offset by other economic factors, such as, oh, I don't now, using some of the PROFITS the insurance companies are making and putting it back into the system. Just a thought.

You just want free market for everything. The problem with that is we've tried it your way and the CEOs are getting richer and people can't afford their health care.

And about the loud-mouthed jerks -- I have to wonder why people would be against something so strenuously when they haven't even bothered to get the facts. Those that are inciting them must honestly believe that if people really looked closely, they'd see how bad the health care system really is. If you are so sure they have a viable alternative, then why are they inciting riots and making sure the reform bill facts are not heard?

Has there really been riots? I mean I am just asking. yeah the definition of riot is a bit all over the board, but usually violence is involved. So has there been violence, again asking because I do not know.

Here is a bit of wisdom that I would like to pass along to the speakers at some of these events: Do not tell someone what they think when starting out, how do you know? It certainly turns me off when someone starts a speech with: I can say we all agree that....etc.....
Just saying.

I think both sides are exploiting all the town hall outbursts. As Yoda has said, the reasonable people that actually would like to debate healthcare are heard from the least.

Well Hells Bells - I have tried to get the FACTS, but what are they? They certainly are not transparent. You can link anything you want, but it certainly does not make it a fact. Nothing personal to you tramp, but I can honestly say that this new "transparency" certainly makes it home in murky waters.

Woo! "Hell's Bells!" That's some strong language there, 7th. Was that your Dad's or Grandad's swearword of choice?

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

You're right. Those Democrats are getting wilder with every suggestion their favorite emperor is naked.

You need to be in the military, Tramp. If you like Obama's healthcare proposal, you'd love no-frills Army sick call.

Yeah that or what in the Sam's hell.

whatever that means.

Basically echoes my thoughts.

Interesting video and I have to say he's right about the state of media. Is there any real unbiased media out there?

But I have to say the information is out there, and I don't get why people don't think it is. The bill is online. What I think isn't out there is some easy to follow reading where you know it is from an unbiased source. I mean that's sort of out there, too, but you have to search for it.

But I think this goes to what has happened to our discourse in this country: people don't want to trust any sources anymore because they think everyone has a bias. That's a serious problem.

Makes sense. But there are several issues from that thread (and this one, too) that are worth addressing. I'll toss some of them in at the end.
I've only begun looking through the report (I'm several pages in), but even so I'm not entirely sure what this supposed to demonstrate. I'm not denying that health care insurers have seen their profits rise. The report may even be right as to the causes, but I'm not sure how that demonstrates that the proposed solution is wise.

It's only ironic if you assume that nationalized healthcare would be good for them. If you believe it'd be bad for everyone (eventually, or overall), then it's not ironic at all.

Several things:

1) It wasn't my suggestion, it was DeMint's. I didn't endorse it, because I don't know enough about it. I'm guessing you don't really know about it, either, right?

2) I mentioned the report as one of several examples to dispell the notion -- which you repeated several times -- that Republicans have offered no alternatives. That is demonstrably false (and still not relevant to the point at hand, anyway, as I've noted).

3) It's funny that you're incredulous of the idea of crossing state lines to lower health care costs, when the report you produced specifically notes that a lack of local competition has driven costs higher in rural states.

4) Greediness is not new. Health care insurers aren't making more because they suddenly decided they wanted more money. Blaming "greed" for various problems is a throwaway explanation.

I already answered this. I'll summarize: 1) the numbers aren't even remotely comparable. Obama's deficit is shaping up to be literally ten times as large. They're not in the same ballpark. 2) this works both ways. Democrats hated the deficit before, now they're silent. Why doesn't this "scream hypocrisy"? 3) Deficit spending is good or bad depending on what it's being spent on and why.

So, in other words, we decide some companies are making too much money, single them out, and make them pay for it?

No, we haven't tried it that way. We haven't even remotely tried it that way. The healthcare industry is overwhelmingly regulated, and there are already huge healthcare entitlements and scads of political factors. We are not operating in anything resembling a free market here.

Obviously the protesters don't think proponents of the plan will fairly and objectively articulate the "facts" of the debate if they stay quiet, which is reasonable. The Congressional Budget Office has repeatedly contradicted the administration's claims about the program's cost.

That said, there's no doubt some of this is counterproductive. The more Obama pushes this the worse the polls about it seem to get. I absolutely want the facts to come out: so far, people haven't liked what they've heard.

A few issues from the other thread:

Why the constant insistence that Republicans had not proposed any alternatives when there have been several? If you were unaware of them, and given how easy they are to find when one looks, does this mean you didn't care to look?

Why is it necessary to have a definitive solution to oppose nationalized healthcare, anyway? And how exactly does said opposition double as an endorsement of the current state of affairs?

Why is it terrible when Republicans do all these things, but not when Democrats did the exact same things to Bush's SS private accounts?